Asyncritus,
Thanks for your response. I have added my comments under your statements to make it easier to follow.
Thanks for your response. I have added my comments under your statements to make it easier to follow.
Asyncritus said:I am personally very heavily against 'theologians' and 'theological training' in general.
Simple reasons.
1 Jesus and His apostles had no time whatsoever for the theologians of the day. In fact He roundly condemned 'the traditions of the elders - the theologians - for their false doctrines and evil practices.
What makes the modern churches any different?
Condemning the "traditions of the elders" for their false doctrines and evil practices is far different than condemning the study of the Scriptures.
2 It was the theologians of the day who were baying for His blood, and later, the blood of His disciples. Saul, you may recall, was one of the foremost, 'breathing out threatenings and murder' against his disciples. You can be sure that there were many other 'theologically trained' besides him. He is but the tip of the iceberg.
You are assuming that theological training makes someone a blood thirsty Christ-denier. I think this is a terribly misguided assumption. There were many "theologians" who became Christians after hearing the Gospel (Acts 6:7).
3 Paul cast aside all his 'theological training' and 'counted it but dung'. Why? Because it was his 'theological training' that caused him to be such a violent persecutor of the church.
What makes you think things are better today?
Paul cast aside confidence in his flesh that established his relationship with God (i.e. circumcision, birthright, titles, works of the law, etc.) He did not say his formal learning of God's Word was dung. It was his confidence in his own accomplishments that he set aside. Yes, if someone is being theologically trained as a way to earn their righteousness, then they should abandon it. But that is not what theological training is about.
Look at where the 'theologians' have led the churches today, and be afraid.
There are no good churches in the world?
The doctrines of the catholic and anglican churches, with so little connection with scripture, have been created by whom? Answer: the theologians.
Huh? I think this statement is void of any historical understanding.
The random doctrines of the random churches dotted around have been created and led by whom? The 'theologians'.
So we would all be one joyous church with no doctrinal differences without theologians? Again, this comment is void of any historical understanding of how denominations came into existence. It had a lot more to do with nationalism and the Reformation than it did theologians sitting in ivory towers.
Are you aware that the 'theologians' of the Graf-Wellhausen schools created that most evil system known so presumptuously as the higher criticism? Which postulated that the prophets couldn't prophesy, that Moses and Abraham couldn't write, and were mere fictions? That the Exodus did not take place, that Sinai was a myth, that Daniel was a fake?
And that those attitudes still permeate the universities and seminaries of today? Do you doubt that? Then let me tell you that the dating of the gospels by these 'theologians' all, practically without exception, say sometime between AD75 -100. And do you know why?
Because they cannot accept that Jesus could have spoken the Olivet prophecy, with its incredibly detailed account of what was going to happen in the Fall of Jerusalem. Therefore the gospels had to be written post-AD70!Such are their doctrines.
The worst part of all this is that in a college, university or seminary, you absorb these things subconsciously, by osmosis as it were. Perhaps no one comes out and says 'inspiration is nonsense'. but it is implied, and the attitudes absorbed, to the unconscious detriment of the scholar.
This is a silly argument. Its similar to the argument that people make saying they wont believe in Christianity because of the inquisition. Linking every theological institution to liberal theologies betrays a great deal of ignorance about "theological institutions" and what they teach.
But it is by their fruits that you shall know them. And what bitter fruits they are!
NT Wright wrote that one could not progress (in the anglican church, presumably) unless one held to the enlightenment philosophy. And a cardinal feature of that philosophy is the belief that Jesus did not rise from the dead.
How can that be since NT Wright believes in the resurrection?
Can you believe that? And these people who 'progress' in the church, stand there every week proclaiming a 'gospel' which is bereft of the resurrection of Christ, and with no awareness of exactly why it is such an important thing. Do you know why it is so important? Did they teach you at university or wherever?
It was the resurrection which powered the teaching of the early church. It was the power of faith in it that made Paul do as he did, and made the apostles willing to die for their beliefs. 'If Christ be not raised', he said. 'your faith is vain, and ye are yet in your sins'. Do you believe that, despite your theologians? And do you know why it is so vital a doctrine?
Um, every Seminary I have been to believes in the resurrection and teaches it as one of the cornerstones of our faith. What are you talking about?
It is no wonder people leave in droves. They are without hope - destroyed by the 'theologians'. So why hang around?
It is the theologians who have created the monumental edifices we see.
Who created the astonishingly unscriptural doctrines of the catholic and anglican churches? Why, their theologians , of course.
And the random and varied doctrines of the various denominations all over the place. Who created those? Why, their theologians, of course.
Who caused the accumulation of enormous quantities of wealth, in assets, land and bullion by the churches everywhere? Why, their theologians, of course.
The trouble , of course, is that these things snowball. One early mistake, and a titanic result follows. Build one building, then another then another and you end up with cathedrals and the most astonishing and expensive structures imaginable - all in the name of Him who had nowhere to lay His head! Who promoted all this one asks? Why, the theologians, of course.
And they keep writing books in their ivory towers. Why aren't they out there 'preaching the gospel'? Instead of flooding the world with paper? To make money, of course, and reputations!
Those are some of the reasons why I have little use for 'theology' and 'theologians'.
To the Law and to the testimony. If they speak not according to this word, it is because they have no light in them (Isa.8.20) Looks like he had the same problems in his day.
The scriptures are enough for any one. They speak at every level: to the brilliant and to the infant. No one is excluded.
They are available almost everywhere today, thanks to those wonderful men, many of whom were burnt by the 'theologians' of their day..
Beware of them, I say.
You paint with a very broad brush and make a whole lot of assumptions that are silly and inaccurate. These arguments are like me saying, "You cant be a Christian leader without a theological degree. Look at David Koresh! Beware! Ignorant Bible teachers lead to cults and unscriptural teaching. Look at Jim Jones and the People's Temple! Just look at Joseph Smith! Non-trained leaders create cults!" Its just silly argument that is not a reflection of reality. Anyone can point to a bad example and make a general rule, but it is not persuasive or legitimate.
Prentis said:We settle for the seminaries for the institutions, for the ways of men because of unbelief. It is because we do not believe in the transforming power of God to the utmost. We might believe it 10%, 50%, 90%, but we do not believe God will do just what he has said, and prepare a bride without spot and wrinkle who will be perfect.
How is committing one self to the disciplined study of God's Word a form of unbelief? I am mystified.
We settle and we do not see, Israel also settled. They would settle for less then the calling, they would be lukewarm. Didn't God send prophets to awaken Israel? To call her back to what she should be? But the prophets were hated.
God sent the prophets because they had either rejected or ignored his Word. Not because they studied it diligently.
The theologians of the day settle with the current state, but if we are to bring life to the world, we must come with the truth of the radical and great call of God. It is unbelief that says 'things have always been so, why try to change them?'
I am not suggesting we settle for anything. But what I am saying is that it is immaturity and the lack of knowledge of God and His Word that ails the church. There will always be new and immature Christians and the Scriptures command us to study, rightly divide the Word, and go on to maturity. I think the classroom setting is a very viable way to accomplish this. Can you show me how this type of formal study of the Bible is errant and leads people way from "the radical and great call of God"?
But we are to be bearers of what is to this world a foreign but most powerful transforming Spirit which calls us to a life so different and peculiar. If we are not strangers and pilgrims on this earth, we need to examine ourselves, and if we are accepted and loved of the world, we need to ask ourselves serious questions, because they loved the false prophets also.
This post might seem harsh, but I say it in hopes that people would see. We have removed ourselves so far from our calling as a body... May we "repent therefore, and be zealous" (Revelations 3, to the Laodiceans, who believed they needed nothing).